Patronizing the swoosh

In late May 2013, a Korean friend who goes by the English name of Billy and I walked a few blocks to Gangnam-daero, one of the busiest streets in Seoul. We were going to the ABC Mart so I could buy a pair of running shoes. Billy, a marathoner like me, had come along to facilitate my purchase. It should be no surprise that both floors were crammed with people. That’s the norm here.

After about 15 minutes of comparison and discussion with my friend, I chose a blue pair of Nikes, supplemented by a white pair—also Nikes. The gentleman behind the counter extended me a 10% discount for no particular reason. While I might have preferred another brand, these fit well and the price was good. So I was heading home with two pairs of shoes bearing the swoosh, one of the best-known logos in the world. (I draw your attention to the dashing Spanish tennis player Rafael Nadal. I like him very much, but he takes his Nike devotion to an extreme. He has the swoosh on his headband, his shirt, his pants, both wristbands, both socks (two sides) and of course, both shoes (two sides): 13 different places. Rafa may wear a Nike-brand jock strap, but I do not want to know.) I dare say it is more familiar than the golden arches of McDonald’s, Mercedes-Benz'  three-cornered star and the Lacoste crocodile. The swoosh grows incrementally, and it is everywhere. It is not just on shoes, but on jackets, hoodies, footballs, basketballs, soccer balls, golf clubs, uniforms and much more.

Don't get me started on uniforms! Nike founder Phil Knight, who once ran track at the University of Oregon, is by far the Ducks’ most generous benefactor. At his (or his employees’) direction, UO has adopted wild uniforms that flout traditional or old-school attitudes. This does not only affect Knight’s alma mater since Nike contracts—and thus influence/pressure—extends to many other schools. I was horrified to see that Nike, with whom University of Texas basketball coach Rick Barnes has a side deal, convinced him to sometimes put his players in black uniforms. I sent Barnes a letter reminding him that the Longhorns’ colors have been orange and white since 1893.

Let’s get back to the two pairs of running shoes I bought in Seoul. I looked at the boxes in which they came and found that my shoes had been made in Indonesia and in Vietnam. I had no expectation whatsoever that they had been made in the USA, although Nike headquarters are in Beaverton, Oregon. We are living in a globalized world, and borders mean less than they used to. Labor costs are much lower in so-called third-world countries, and lots of people there are desperate for jobs. Making shoes, apparel and equipment is a fairly dull and repetitive task, and the skills it requires are generally not well compensated. I realize I am stating the obvious here.

Many American companies have relied on sweatshop labor, sometimes child labor, over the past 40 or so years, but Nike seems to have become synonymous with it. The first factories—and it is important to note that these were subcontracted and thus not technically and legally Nike’s responsibility—were set up in South Korea, Taiwan and China. As those economies developed and unions were formed, the company shifted its production to Vietnam and Indonesia. Everywhere the complaints have surfaced: miserable working conditions, poor pay, cruel managers, long hours, and so on. For years, Knight was in denial and insisted that problems were few and scattered. But Nike, which generates $20 billion in annual revenue, had a PR nightmare on its hands as the issue was covered in alternative media and eventually on the front page of the New York Times.

In the mid-1990s, Nike took a new approach and began making references to corporate responsibility. Factories were investigated, and conditions did indeed improve. I assume the changes are both substantial and cosmetic, but Nike sure talks a good game. It now professes to have lofty “core values”  and mission statements along with a web site called www.nikebetterworld.com. Judge for yourself.

There are some sensitive souls who adamantly refuse to wear Nike shoes, or shirts, or socks, or any form of apparel that bears the swoosh. Call me a narrow-minded consumer, but at the very least I am aware of the background. I do think the worst of the sweatshops have been cleaned up and that the days of workers being treated as semi-slaves are over. A factory cranking out Nike products these days is liable to be fairly well run, and its workers (70% female, for what that is worth) have in many cases been rescued from poverty. Having a steady income enables them to improve their lives in fundamental ways. Nobody ever said they would get rich making sports shoes, but dadgum, it’s a job.